Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not even close to what I wrote. The respective availabilities to the same unit of freshly grown food is a qualitative difference in the food those areas are able to provide. The greater the availability, the greater the opportunity. Its just a matter of degree and the extent to which the local markets avail themselves to that difference.
I see the point but in practice dont see a tremendously discernable difference. Also places adapt to what works best there. Honestly I find the bread on the WC to be inferior to the EC in general, that may have to do with water consistency and humidity, dunno I do agree that in general there is more variety more easially attained on the west coast for said reasons; though in practice is less noticable. More felt in cheaper than more expensive especially. That said the cheaper foods adapt to what is fresh and this is where I see larger differences. Then that comes back to which cheap foods one prefers quite honestly
Look I think the food in SF and LA are excellent; would never say otherwise but on the whole I frankly dont see other at the level of NYC (or Chicago FTM though to me SF is really realy close to Chicago) even without the same access. Though I judge more on things skewing to finer dinning. On lower cost options if one wants burritos then would probably say the west coast. If one wants roast prok with brocoli rabe on a great roll I would rather on the EC. that is preference the quality of produce is better overall for longer on the WC but frankly there is no shortage and as I said some things actually grow and taste better grown here (No one in Cali or hardly anyone would believe this I am sure) nor is there any shortage of access to fresh produce year round without looking hard. I am not being a hard nosed Eastcoaster but I feel like the WC folks just have no real idea how good and fresh things can be here, and even locally grown stuff.
I like the diversity but there is no paucity of freash and great ingredients on the EC; nor the WC
2. Chicago: tons of excellent food of all different kinds. I ate like a king when I was there
3. LA: Very influential. Seems like a lot of the fresh/local movement got going here. Awesome mexican food.
4. New Orleans: definitely should be an option, it has so much originality. You can get food there you can't get anywhere else. Of course as a smaller city it doesn't have the same variety as the other places on this list, and if you don't like creole/cajun, drop it down to the bottom of the list.
5. SF: for me, it didn't quite live up to the hype. Very good though. I'd like to go back and eat at more places.
6. Philly: I was unaware of what a good food city Philly is until I went. Doesn't seem to get as much recognition as it deserves. Famous for cheese-steaks, but the high end restaurants here are really good.
7. Atlanta: Good options on the high and low ends. A bit underrated.
8. DC: Great city, but I lived there for several years and was a bit disappointed in the restaurants there. Lots of good stuff, but a bit lower than I had anticipated.
9. Miami: Meh
I haven't been to Dallas, Boston, or Houston enough to comment on those places. I suspect they are around the Atlanta-DC ranking in my list.
Well the James Beard awards, basically the "pulitzer prize" of the restaurant industry in the US, finalists for 2012 were just announced a couple of hours ago, and it's overwhelmingly littered with representation from these 3 regions without question.
NYC
SF Bay
CHI
And from what I've noticed, it's been kinda like this for the past few years that I've been paying attention.
Well the James Beard awards, basically the "pulitzer prize" of the restaurant industry in the US, finalists for 2012 were just announced a couple of hours ago, and it's overwhelmingly littered with representation from these 3 regions without question.
NYC
SF Bay
CHI
And from what I've noticed, it's been kinda like this for the past few years that I've been paying attention.
Except LA has better food than SF....and arguably, Philadelphia. The poll here, though unscientific, is telling what the national public really thinks instead of one or two publications.
Except LA has better food than SF....and arguably, Philadelphia. The poll here, though unscientific, is telling what the national public really thinks instead of one or two publications.
OK, I'm wrong. You are an absolute GENIUS for believing that 8 votes (as of this moment) constitues "what the national public really thinks".
4. New Orleans: definitely should be an option, it has so much originality. You can get food there you can't get anywhere else. Of course as a smaller city it doesn't have the same variety as the other places on this list, and if you don't like creole/cajun, drop it down to the bottom of the list.
.
edit: thought about it and put LA above N.O.
Yes, seconded. FANTASTIC food. I am not a foodie by any stretch but even the tourist traps are amazing. I get really tired of LA NYC and Chicago hogging all the glory. They are huge-- of course they are gonna have options!
I would not personally but Philly has made huge strides on food and is closing the food gap to SF more quickly than the SF faithful would probably like to believe
Philly is absolutely one of the best eating cities in the country but to me would still put it behind NYC, Chicago, SF, and most likely LA all other cities not so sure I would put any in front of Philly on the whole; maybe comparable
I know you are probably the most not biased person on this site but some things you say are just wrong.
Give me 3 reasons how SF beats Philly in foods? Also who's side are you on?
They are both tied to me when I think about it and personally Philadelphia has more of a variety of ethnic foods than San Francisco. The only reason people are saying San Francisco is just because they know San Francisco is noted as a world class city therefor what ever it is, it's better than any other city in "insert item". That's not true though. Any foodie who travels this country would know that Philly is at least tied with San Francisco, if not BETTER. They're no negative views of our food most of the time anyway.
OH And look at that, Philly just took 3rd place. But I'm sure SF will catch back up.
I know you are probably the most not biased person on this site but some things you say are just wrong.
Give me 3 reasons how SF beats Philly in foods? Also who's side are you on?
They are both tied to me when I think about it and personally Philadelphia has more of a variety of ethnic foods than San Francisco. The only reason people are saying San Francisco is just because they know San Francisco is noted as a world class city therefor what ever it is, it's better than any other city in "insert item". That's not true though. Any foodie who travels this country would know that Philly is at least tied with San Francisco, if not BETTER. They're no negative views of our food most of the time anyway.
OH And look at that, Philly just took 3rd place. But I'm sure SF will catch back up.
Agreed.
SF isn't even better than LA, never mind Chicago or Philadelphia.
A quick search on chowhound or yelp will confirm this fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
